• From: Amelia A Lewis <amyzing@t...>
• To: xml-dev@l...
• Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 19:50:19 -0400

On 2007-09-29 19:10:02 -0400 Rick Marshall <rjm@z...> wrote:
> Most character encodings used for more complex character sets have 
> ASCII as 
> their starting point. They are ASCII extended for ... by ... This 
> includes 
> the UTF codings.

Uh.  It includes UTF-8.  I do not believe that it includes UTF-16 
(unless you wish to elide the high byte altogether), in either BE or 
LE variants.  I don't think it includes UTF-7, either.  Any argument 
that claims that ASCII is a subset of UTF-16 has to do some violence 
to the notion of ASCII, since ASCII is not defined for a sixteen-bit 
wide encoding (even if it doesn't say anything about the meaning of 
the high bit in an eight-bit field, either).

Amy!
-- 
Amelia A. Lewis                    amyzing {at} talsever.com
What's the end of a story?  When you begin telling it.
                 -- Ursula K. Le Guin

• References:
  • Re: [Summary] UTF-8 Question: e with acute accent should require two bytes, right?
    • From: Rick Marshall <rjm@z...>